Z'ing the rear?????

[bigo181979]

I know a lot of people are running step notches but I dont like the look of all the stuff sticking through the bed. I want the floor to be flat like stock.
So my question is has anyone had any experience doing this???? What I am looking to do is like what they did on that fesler built truck that was in truck builder mag. Z the rear and raise the bed floor. Just looking for some guidence and I am z'ing the front 3" as well.
Here is the link to the truck I am talking about:
http://www.feslerbuilt.com/1967ChevyTruck.htm

[smashingchuck]

you just need to run the correct size notch, and raise the bed floor high enough to cover it . Build the bed mounts accordingly.

[ZBS 64]

You can do an under the bed kit

[bagged81]

What is your current setup? Stock? If not how much?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by ZBS 64

You can do an under the bed kit

No 'step notch' is going to fit under a stock bed floor on a 67~72. The floor is going to require surgery or raising for clearance because it's 1" (or less) above the highest part of the rear frame rails.

[bigo181979]

Right now it is stock I just started doing deconstruction on the truck so I can start working on the frame with out the body in the way. The reason I like this idea is it looked really clean from what I saw and I was thinking about doing the z right in front of the stock trailing arm cross member so I wouldn't have to worry about it hitting the ground and I wouldn't have to do a custom 4 link. Also this would give me a way to run the exahust over the frame and under the bed and dump it out the side. I have to double check the location of the rear crossmember though now that I think about that... Also I do plan to tow with my truck on occasion and it seems to me from what i have been reading a z would be stronger, less welding less chance for failure, then a big step notch.

As far as runnning gear I will probably be running a 20" wheel with a 29" tall tire.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by bigo181979

Right now it is stock I just started doing deconstruction on the truck so I can start working on the frame with out the body in the way. The reason I like this idea is it looked really clean from what I saw and I was thinking about doing the z right in front of the stock trailing arm cross member so I wouldn't have to worry about it hitting the ground and I wouldn't have to do a custom 4 link. Also this would give me a way to run the exahust over the frame and under the bed and dump it out the side. I have to double check the location of the rear crossmember though now that I think about that... Also I do plan to tow with my truck on occasion and it seems to me from what i have been reading a z would be stronger, less welding less chance for failure, then a big step notch.

As far as runnning gear I will probably be running a 20" wheel with a 29" tall tire.

The rear crossmember for the trailing arms is under the cab so it would be difficult to 'Z' easily. You would have to move farther back on the frame. Look for posts by Rockcrln. He did a rear frame clip 'Z' on his long term project that worked well visually.

[bigo181979]

I will see if i can find that, thanks

[brandonh]

seems to me that zing the rear is a pain and could cause problems with getting your truck low, u can put a notch in the frame and still have a stock looking bed.

also i would think again about zing the front and back if you are going to be towing with it imo. a bagged truck isnt the best thing to be towing with.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by brandonh

..... also i would think again about zing the front and back if you are going to be towing with it imo. a bagged truck isnt the best thing to be towing with.

It's all in the planning. If you build it w/the capability of towing in mind, towing w/bags is not a problem.

[bigo181979]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

It's all in the planning. If you build it w/the capability of towing in mind, towing w/bags is not a problem.

I was going to say, have you looked at the big rigs on the road lately the all use air bags... I know its a bit different but likw scoti said with the right bag it shouldn't be a problem. Plus i am only looking at towing a jet ski trailer or a small boat for the most part.

[LuckyHG]

If it were me i would notch it, dont cut up the bed floor and raise it accordingly. IF you Z the rear you will still have to raise the bed floor anyway.

[bigo181979]

I dont mind raising the bed floor as long as the floor is flat! I dont want a big hump in the middle of my bed is all and I have hurd of a lot of problemc with step notches cracking do to the way that force is exerted on them and the fact that you have 2 weldded areas along with the notch it self being welded together, thats just to many possible points of failure for my taste! I have been doing some more research and I think I am going to give it a try and see what happens, I have a couple people that build custom rods and chassies for a living,that we put wheels on their stuff, that I have spoken with and the said they would try to help me out as long as i was willing to waite. So we will see what happens!

[SCOTI]

Here's the truck I mentioned...... "Project Slow Build"

[impala_631]

just install your notch then raise the bed floor to clear the notch, thats alot better that doing a rear z

[ucmydust68]

so if you were to z the front and rear, use no step notch just a c notch how much would you have to raise the bed floor. how much did the guy above raise his floor??? sounds like a good way to keep the flat floor and trailing arms.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by ucmydust68

so if you were to z the front and rear, use no step notch just a c notch how much would you have to raise the bed floor. how much did the guy above raise his floor??? sounds like a good way to keep the flat floor and trailing arms.

As SCOTI mentioned above, the bed floor is very close to the frame on these trucks. With nothing more than a C-notch, you can bump the differential on the xmember that runs just in front of the rearend, and with the slightest trimming of that xmember, you can hit the pumpkin on the bed floor. That's all without even cutting through the frame and getting into "real low" territory. There's no reason to do the "rear Z" on these trucks to get them unbearably low (though I applaud Rock on his creative drop). If you want a flat bed floor, raise it up, then apply the "standard" drop methods to the back of the truck and you'll be plenty low.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by XXL

As SCOTI mentioned above, the bed floor is very close to the frame on these trucks. With nothing more than a C-notch, you can bump the differential on the xmember that runs just in front of the rearend, and with the slightest trimming of that xmember, you can hit the pumpkin on the bed floor. That's all without even cutting through the frame and getting into "real low" territory. There's no reason to do the "rear Z" on these trucks to get them unbearably low (though I applaud Rock on his creative drop). If you want a flat bed floor, raise it up, then apply the "standard" drop methods to the back of the truck and you'll be plenty low.

The main benefit I see would be that a rear frame 'Z' would allow more drop using the stock trailing arm configuration because it raises the height of the frame where they eventually contact the trailing arm w/extreme drops.

A flat bed floor can be done w/a Z'd frame or a step-notch.

[67Fleet]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

The main benefit I see would be that a rear frame 'Z' would allow more drop using the stock trailing arm configuration because it raises the height of the frame where they eventually contact the trailing arm w/extreme drops.

excellent point. The trailing arms are the first thing that hits now on my setup with the KP notch

[joehalford01]

i'm confused now, wouldn't you need to z the frame on the other side of the crossmember that the trailing arms attach to? or has that been addressed by altering the crossmember on this particular truck? i can't see how the trailing arms would get more clearance if they are still bolted into the stock location. i'm a newb so sorry if it's painfully obvious and i'm just not getting it.

[67Fleet]

No, the trailing arms would be able to go up that much further before hitting the frame rails because they have been raised.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by 67Fleet

No, the trailing arms would be able to go up that much further before hitting the frame rails because they have been raised.

What is "they?" If the trailing arms, they don't get raised unless you do the Z under the cab. If the frame rails, are you just trying to get clearance for more trailing arm travel? If the latter, a "simple" notch there will give you the same effect.

The reality is, for trailing arm suspensions, where you locate the frame after the trailing arm xmember is irrelevant (except for the Panhard bar mount, which can be adjusted up/down rather easily). You don't even need a frame at all (again, except for some kind of centering device such as the Panhard) after the trailing arm xmember.

[brandonh]

"The reality is, for trailing arm suspensions, where you locate the frame after the trailing arm xmember is irrelevant (except for the Panhard bar mount, which can be adjusted up/down rather easily). You don't even need a frame at all (again, except for some kind of centering device such as the Panhard) after the trailing arm xmember."-XXL


Very well said XXL alot of people dont seem to understand that, they think the back of frame is such a structural piece, im not saying u dont need it but all it is a place to mount pan hard , springs and bed. The trailing arm crossmemeber that the trailing arms bolt to is the main strength.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by XXL

What is "they?" If the trailing arms, they don't get raised unless you do the Z under the cab. If the frame rails, are you just trying to get clearance for more trailing arm travel? If the latter, a "simple" notch there will give you the same effect.

The reality is, for trailing arm suspensions, where you locate the frame after the trailing arm xmember is irrelevant (except for the Panhard bar mount, which can be adjusted up/down rather easily). You don't even need a frame at all (again, except for some kind of centering device such as the Panhard) after the trailing arm xmember.

Those frame rails that "you don't even need" are kind of important for locating the top of the rear suspension parts (springs/bags, shocks) & bed floor unless you don't plan to have a bed.

The frame rails interfere w/the trailing arms when the arms are raised high enough. A simple notch of the frame would/could remedy the situation but you will still have to modify the bed supports (to raise the bed floor if keeping it a solid floor) create a new shock crossmember as well as the rear-ends locating device.

Z-ing may not be everyone's answer..... but it is still a viable option for some when still retaining the trailing arms (or factory front a-arms/steering box) & going ultra-low.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Those frame rails that "you don't even need" are kind of important for locating the top of the rear suspension parts (springs/bags, shocks) & bed floor unless you don't plan to have a bed.

Taillights, license plates, bumpers... of course. I was speaking in terms of suspension travel. I didn't mean that you could ACTUALLY bob the back end behind the cab. However... I stumbled across a bobber frame on the fleabay the other day (designed for a 50's Frod cab and basic rolled edge/trailer fender bed common to the period) and it got me to scratching thy head. Hmmm... shorten the hell out of a stepside bed and yank the fenders in favor of trailer fenders. Hmmm again...

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Z-ing may not be everyone's answer..... but it is still a viable option for some when still retaining the trailing arms (or factory front a-arms/steering box) & going ultra-low.

I don't disagree that this is _a_ viable method. I just don't see the payoff from a mechanical perspective (you get payoff like Rockcrln's because it's cool to do something different). For trucks like your next-gen, it's the only way to go if you want extra low.